UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

LOUIS MICHAEL ZAMORA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 21-1338 

(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01710-LTB-GPG) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Proceeding pro se,1

 Plaintiff-Appellant Louis Michael Zamora appeals the 

district court’s dismissal of his complaint. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, we affirm. 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially help determine this appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 We liberally construe Zamora’s filings, but we will not serve as his advocate. 

James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 28, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-1338 Document: 010110624980 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 1
2 

BACKGROUND 

In his original complaint, Zamora sued the United States Department of Health 

and Human Services,2

 apparently asserting a claim under the Federal Tort Claims 

Act. A magistrate judge concluded that Zamora’s complaint did not satisfy Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 8. So it directed him to amend his complaint. Though the 

magistrate judge gave Zamora several opportunities to amend,3

 his amended 

complaints remained deficient. Thus, the magistrate judge recommended that the 

district court dismiss Zamora’s last-amended complaint for failing to meet Rule 8’s 

pleading requirements. The recommendation advised Zamora that he had fourteen 

days to file written objections to the district court and that failure to object may bar 

him from appealing the magistrate judge’s findings. Zamora did not object. 

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and 

dismissed the complaint without prejudice. It also denied Zamora’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, certifying under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that his 

appeal would not be in good faith. Zamora now appeals. 

DISCUSSION

We first consider whether Zamora has waived his right to appellate review. 

Our circuit applies a firm-waiver rule. Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116, 

2

 The original complaint named the Department’s paralegal specialist, Heather 

Hill, as a defendant. But Zamora later dropped her as a named defendant. 

3

 In his amended complaints, Zamora named the Department’s former 

secretary, Alex Azar, as a defendant. He also added claims alleging the Department’s 

negligent and wrongful acts of omissions and antitrust violations. 

Appellate Case: 21-1338 Document: 010110624980 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 2
3 

1119 (10th Cir. 2005). Under that rule, a party who fails to timely object to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendations waives appellate review. Id. The rule has two 

exceptions: (1) when a pro se litigant is unadvised that he must object or waive the 

objection; and (2) when the “interests of justice” require review. Id. Factors relevant 

to the second exception include the party’s efforts to comply with the objection 

requirement, the party’s explanation for failing to comply, and the “importance of the 

issues raised.” Id. at 1120. 

 We ordered Zamora to show cause as to why he did not waive his right to 

appellate review when he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

He responded by arguing that he did not “recall[] waiving his rights to the appellate 

review,” and he requested appellate review in the “interests of justice.” Opening Br. 

at 3. 

Neither exception to the firm-waiver rule fits here. First, Zamora had adequate 

notice—the magistrate judge’s recommendation informed Zamora that he was 

required to object within fourteen days and that failure to do so may waive appellate 

review. And second, the “interests of justice” don’t require review. Zamora made no 

effort to challenge the magistrate judge’s recommendation, failed to justify that 

failure, and his appellate brief doesn’t raise issues of such importance to overcome 

these other factors. See Henderson v. Cargill Packing Plant, 780 F. App’x 674, 675 

(10th Cir. 2019). 

Thus, Zamora has waived his right to appellate review. See Bhomengo v. Hosp. 

Shared Servs. Inc., 543 F. App’x 812, 814 (10th Cir. 2013). 

Appellate Case: 21-1338 Document: 010110624980 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 3
4 

CONCLUSION 

Because Zamora has waived his right to appellate review, we dismiss the 

appeal. We also deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.4

 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge 

4

 We deny Zamora’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he has not 

shown a reasoned, non-frivolous argument to support his appeal. See Saleh v. Kimo, 

821 F. App’x 915, 918 (10th Cir. 2020). 

Appellate Case: 21-1338 Document: 010110624980 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 4